This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd.

Transcription

1 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics

2 This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd., St Albans, UK EUROPEN 2013 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl Avenue de l Armée 6, 1040 Brussels, Belgium packaging@europen.be Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this paper up to the time of publication, The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl cannot accept any responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions. EUROPEN The Voice of Industry for Packaging and the Environment is an industry and trade organization open to any company with an economic interest in packaging and packaged goods. It presents the opinion of its members on issues related to packaging and the environment.

3 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics Introduction Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste aims to minimise the environmental impact of packaging and packaging waste and to guarantee free access throughout the Community for packaging and packaged goods complying with its provisions. It lays down measures to reduce the generation of packaging waste and sets recovery and recycling targets which have been subsequently updated by Directive 2004/12/EC. As part of its monitoring of European developments regarding packaging and packaging waste in Europe, EUROPEN regularly analyses the data which Member States submit to the European Commission each year. This paper gives an overview of the latest reported packaging consumption, treatment and disposal figures from the 27 EU Member States for the year 2010 and examines the trends since The 15 countries then in membership of the EU ( EU-15 ) 1 have been reporting packaging and packaging waste data to the Commission since As the 1997 returns were in many cases inconsistent with those for the following years, this analysis uses 1998 as the starting-point. The ten countries which joined the EU in May 2004 were required to submit data from that year onwards, but the Czech Republic and Hungary also chose to report on 2002 and the Czech Republic and Slovakia on A full set of data is available for all 27 Member States ( EU- 27 ) from 2005, the first year that Bulgaria and Romania reported. For comparison purposes, this analysis sometimes shows data for EU-12 separately: these are the member states that joined the EU in 2004 and Norway and Lichtenstein have reported since Norway and Lichtenstein are not EU members, but as they are part of the European Economic Area they are required to comply with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. We have included their data in all of the tables in this report, but have not aggregated them with the data from the EU Member States. These annual reports should be submitted to the Commission within 18 months of the end of the calendar year. The Member States reports for can be found on the EUROSTAT website at 1 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 2 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), and Bulgaria and Romania (2007).

4

5 Contents Introduction... 3 Key conclusions... 7 A Note on the accuracy of the data... 9 EU packaging recovery and recycling targets...10 First stage targets set by the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive...10 Second stage targets set by the 2004 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive...10 Decoupling packaging consumption and disposal from economic growth...11 Progress towards the EU recycling targets...12 Impact of energy recovery on recycling rates...13 Packaging Placed On The Market...14 Glass packaging...18 Metal packaging...20 Plastic packaging...22 Paper & board packaging...24 Wood packaging...26 PACKAGING WASTE GOING TO FINAL DISPOSAL...28 Recycling Rates And Trends...30 Recovery Rates And Trends...32 Recycling Rates by Material...36 Glass packaging...36 Metal packaging...38 Plastic packaging...41 Paper & board packaging...43 Wood packaging...45

6 6 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

7 Key conclusions The amount of packaging being placed on the market has been increasing much more slowly than growth in consumer spending and other indicators Figure 1: Trends in household expenditure, packaging consumption and packaging disposal in EU-15, indexed to Household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages All household expenditure Non-wood packaging placed on the market, per capita Non-wood packaging sent for final disposal, per capita The amount of used packaging sent for final disposal is declining rapidly, as recovery rates and particularly recycling rates continue to increase. In 2010, 65% of the packaging placed on the market in EU-15, and 47% of the packaging placed on the market in the newer Member States, was recycled. Figures 2a and 2b: Trends in packaging consumption, recycling and disposal ( 000 tonnes) EU-15 Packaging placed on the market Packaging recycled Packaging sent for final disposal EU-12 Packaging placed on the market Packaging sent for final disposal Packaging recycled Figure 1 shows that packaging production and packaging waste disposal 3 have clearly been decoupled from economic growth. Despite a 17.5% per capita increase in household consumption expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks between 2000 and 2010, 4 an ageing population and a trend throughout Europe toward smaller households, 5 all of which lead to the purchase of a greater number of packaged 3 Differences in terminology create some confusion here. The Commission Decisions setting out the format for reporting on packaging and packaging waste require Member States to report on the amount of packaging placed on the market under the heading packaging waste generated. This term is therefore used to describe packaging placed on the market in all official EU documents. This in turn means that official reports often state that the amount of packaging waste is increasing, whereas the true position is that (slightly) more packaging is coming onto the market each year, but less and less of it is disposed of as waste. 4 Source: EUROSTAT, 5 EUROSTAT reports ( that the average number of people per household across EU-15 fell by about 4% from 2.40 in 2000 to 2.23 in Across EU-25 (i.e. with Bulgaria and Romania omitted), average household size fell from 2.44 to 2.26 over the same period. Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

8 goods, the amount of non-wood packaging placed on the market in EU-15 rose by just 5.6% and the amount of non-wood packaging waste disposed of 6 actually fell by 47.4%. In EU-27 just under 18.7 million tonnes of packaging (including wood) were sent for final disposal in To put this into context, it was estimated in 2010 that about 89 million tonnes of food was wasted per year in EU EUROSTAT reports 8 that more than 1,051 million tonnes of all kinds of waste were sent for final disposal 9 in EU-27 in Figures 2a and 2b illustrate the evolution of packaging consumption, recycling and disposal in EU-15 and EU-12. Between 1998 and 2010, the tonnage of packaging placed on the market in EU-15 rose by 11.1% but the tonnage recycled rose by 53.5%. In EU-12, the tonnage placed on the market between 2005 and 2010 increased by 5.5% but the tonnage recycled increased by 44.3%. Figures 3a and 3b compare non-wood packaging consumption and disposal with an alternative indicator, GDP. GDP is most commonly used for this purpose, but it measures all goods and services, including those which are not packaging-related. Household expenditure, which is around half of GDP, is more relevant. Household expenditure, and more specifically household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages, is shown in Figure 1. Figure 4 illustrates progress against the EU recycling target. It shows that all twelve Member States required to meet the EU s second-stage recycling target in 2008 did so, although Sweden has subsequently slipped back to one percentage point below the target. Three of the Member States whose deadlines were 2011 or later had already exceeded the target by 2008, and six had done so by Despite the recession and a reduction in the amount of packaging placed on the market between 2007 and 2009, the recycling rate for all materials except wood continued to increase. By the end of 2010, 63% of the packaging placed on the market in EU-27, and 65% of the packaging placed on the market in EU-15, was being recycled. The new Member States had increased their overall recycling rate from 34% in 2005 to 47% in This is well beyond the targets set by EU legislation. There are some anomalies in the data due to the difficulty of calculating packaging placed on the market and packaging waste recovered, but there is no doubt that the experience of the last decade shows that the packaging waste management models adopted in Europe have been broadly successful. It has sometimes been suggested that the establishment of energy recovery facilities diverts materials away from recycling. Figure 5 compares the recovery 10 and recycling rates achieved by each of the EU-27 Member States. From this chart it is difficult to draw a conclusion one way or the other, not least because some northern Member States which are heavily committed to recycling have long recovered energy from a large proportion of their municipal waste. 11 This issue is discussed further in the context of Table 23, which indicates that there is a weak correlation between a high recycling rate and a high energy recovery rate. Much depends on the waste management history, physical geography and level of economic development of each country. However, Table 18 demonstrates that of the eleven EU-15 Member States which had municipal solid waste incineration facilities in 2008, only four needed these incinerators (or other energy recovery technologies) to enable them to meet the 60% recovery target for used packaging in that year. France required 5% of its packaging to be recovered in this way, and Spain and Sweden required just 1% to be recovered through municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration. Finland, with 57% recycling and no energy recovery reported in 2008, missed the recovery target. By 2010, the only Member States that needed MSW incineration to enable them to meet the 2008 recovery target were Finland and Sweden. As Table 20 shows, both comfortably exceeded the recovery target, with recovery rates of 85% and 77% respectively. This will not be an issue for the new Member States, as none of them make significant use of municipal solid waste incinerators. 6 For the purposes of packaging waste, disposal generally means that the material was either put in landfill or burned without energy recovery. 7 Source: 8 Source: 9 By means such as incineration without energy recovery, landfilling, permanent storage and release into the sea. 10 Recovery means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. Recycling is one means of recovery. Composting organic recycling falls within the definition of recycling. 11 Municipal waste consists of waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities. Most of this originates from households, but similar wastes from catering premises and other businesses, offices, public institutions and some municipal services are also included. Municipal waste includes bulky waste but excludes waste from municipal sewage networks and municipal construction and demolition waste. 8 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

9 A Note on the accuracy of the data European Commission Decision 2005/270/EC sets out the reporting formats for the Member States, starting with the 2003 reports. Before then, Commission Decision 97/138/EC was in force and reporting on wood packaging was optional. As Tables 13 and 34 show, Member States reports on wood have been highly inconsistent and this skews the data for the earlier years. Thus, although it is the total reported, including wood, that is relevant for achievement of the Directive s overall recycling and recovery targets, the data for packaging excluding wood is more useful for identifying trends. In this report we provide both. Commission Decisions 97/138/EC and 2005/270/EC prescribed the reporting formats but did not specify the calculation methodologies to be used by the Member States. These vary widely, so comparisons between the relative performance levels of the Member States can only be a broad indication of orders of magnitude. In any case, different levels of economic development and differences in geography and infrastructure make such comparisons unfair. The data are more useful in tracking year-on-year progress within a given Member State, 12 though even here, changes to the calculation methodologies sometimes obscure the trends. The 2004 amendment to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive specified that packaging waste exported out of the Community for reprocessing only counts towards achievement of the targets if there is sound evidence that recovery or recycling took place under conditions broadly equivalent to those prescribed by European Community legislation. This change was introduced in time to affect the reports for 2003 onwards, and means that some reprocessing which may have counted towards the targets in earlier years should have been disregarded after Thus, the real increase in recycling and recovery since 1998 may have been greater than the official statistics indicate. 13 The Czech Republic reported data for 2002 and 2003, and Hungary for 2002, but when EUROSTAT took over responsibility for the data from DG Environment in 2008 it was agreed to disregard the 2002 data as they were presented in the earlier format specified by Commission Decision 97/138/EC and were not consistent with the later submissions. However, although the 2002/03 returns from these countries do not appear in the EUROSTAT tables, they are still recorded in this analysis. The packaging and packaging waste tonnages reported by the Member States are sometimes well out of line with year-on-year trends in the countries concerned. EUROSTAT has investigated these inconsistencies, and we have reported the explanations received. For example: The Danish EPA has a new waste database, and has used 2009 data as representative for EUROPEN s previous trends analysis, of the data for , noted that an apparent 25% fall in Dutch consumption of packaging between 2007 and 2008 was due to a change in the data collection methodology. Since a packaging tax was introduced in 2008, the tax authorities rather than industry bodies have been gathering information on the amount of packaging placed on the market. Also, the de minimis reporting threshold was reduced, so the amount of packaging from small companies (or companies using relatively little packaging) which was estimated rather than reported had been reduced. Data from earlier years have since been recalculated, so this break in the trend is no longer so apparent. The Swedish authorities have advised that year-on-year comparisons of Swedish data are unreliable as the methodology used has changed over the years. In a few cases, reported recycling rates exceed 100%. This may be due to under-reporting of the amount of packaging placed on the market, or to more used packaging being collected for recycling than was originally placed on that national market. This can happen in countries where personal imports of packaged products are significant. 12 For this reason, it is not practicable to harmonise calculation methodologies now. That might improve comparability between Member States, but much more useful information on national trends would be lost. 13 Of course, there will still be some sham recycling waste exported ostensibly for recycling, but in reality destined for low-cost, unregulated disposal in countries with weak waste management legislation or enforcement. Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

10 EU packaging recovery and recycling targets First stage targets set by the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive Recovery Recycling 50%-65% 25%-45% overall min 15% glass min 15% paper/board min 15% metals min 15% plastics EU-15 except Greece, Ireland, Portugal end 2001 end 2001 end 2001 end 2001 end 2001 end 2001 Greece Ireland Portugal end 2005 end 2005 end 2005 end 2005 end 2005 end 2005 Estonia May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 Czech Republic end 2005 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2005 Cyprus end 2005 end 2005 May 2004 end 2005 May 2004 end 2004 Hungary end 2005 May 2004 End 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2005 Lithuania end 2006 end 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2004 end 2004 Latvia end 2007 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2007 Poland end 2007 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2005 end 2005 Slovakia end 2007 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2007 May 2004 Slovenia end 2007 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2007 Malta end 2009 end 2005 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2009 Bulgaria end 2011 before 2007 before 2007 end 2007 end 2007 end 2009 Romania end 2011 before 2007 before 2007 end 2007 end 2007 end 2011 Second stage targets set by the 2004 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive EU-15 except Greece, Ireland, Portugal Greece Ireland Portugal Recovery 60% 55%-80% overall min 60% glass Recycling min 60% paper/board min 50% metals min 22.5% plastics end 2008 end 2008 end 2008 end 2008 end 2008 end 2008 end 2011 end 2011 end 2011 end 2011 end 2011 end 2011 Cyprus end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Czech Republic end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Estonia end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Hungary end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Lithuania end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Slovakia end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Slovenia end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 end 2012 Malta end 2013 end 2013 end 2013 end 2013 end 2013 end 2013 Poland end 2014 end 2014 end 2014 end 2014 end 2014 end 2014 Latvia end 2015 end 2015 end 2015 end 2015 end 2015 end 2015 Romania end 2013 end 2013 end 2013 end 2008 end 2008 end 2013 Bulgaria end 2014 end 2014 end 2013 end 2008 end 2008 end Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

11 Decoupling packaging consumption and disposal from economic growth Figure 3a: Trends in GDP, packaging consumption and packaging disposal in EU EU-15 GDP (EUR bn, current market prices) EU-15 non-wood packaging consumption ('000 tonnes) EU-15 non-wood packaging disposal ('000 tonnes) Figure 3b: Trends in GDP, packaging consumption and packaging disposal in EU EU-12 GDP (EUR bn, current market prices) EU-12 non-wood packaging consumption ('000 tonnes) EU-12 non-wood packaging disposal ('000 tonnes) Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

12 Progress towards the EU recycling targets Figure 4: Member States 2010 recycling performance against the 55% recycling target Target deadline Denmark Belgium Netherlands Germany Austria 2008 Luxembourg Italy Spain France UK Finland Sweden 2011 Ireland Greece Portugal 2012 Czech Republic Slovenia Lithuania Estonia Hungary Cyprus Slovakia 2013 Romania Malta 2014 Bulgaria Poland 2015 Latvia 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 55% Target Rate 12 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

13 Impact of energy recovery on recycling rates Figure 5: Energy recovery and recycling rates in the European Economic Area, 2010 Denmark Belgium Netherlands Germany Czech Republic Austria Ireland Luxembourg Italy Bulgaria Spain France Slovenia UK Lithuania Greece Norway Estonia Portugal Finland Sweden Hungary Cyprus Latvia Liechtenstein Slovakia Romania Poland Malta 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Energy recovery Recycling Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

14 Packaging Placed On The Market Table 1 shows the overall packaging tonnages reported to the European Commission. 14 Between 1998 and 2010, the amount of packaging reported to have been placed on the market in EU-15 increased by 11.1%, a compound annual increase of 0.91%. Per capita consumption of packaging rose by 4.8%, an average annual increase of 0.9%. Between 2005 and 2010, the amount of packaging reported to have been placed on the market in EU-12 increased by 5.5%, an average annual increase of 1.1%. Per capita consumption of packaging rose by 5.7%, also an average annual increase of 1.1%. Table 1: Packaging placed on the market as reported to the Commission (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece , , Hungary Ireland , Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU , EU , EU As was predicted from demographic trends, the amount of packaging being placed on the market continued to increase up to the end of The economic downturn which began in late 2008 resulted in 19 Member States reporting a lower amount of packaging placed on the market in 2009 than in The market has recovered to some extent since, and in EU-15 packaging consumption was back at the 2004 level by Only seven Member States reported their tonnages of wood packaging in 1998 reporting on wood did not become mandatory until This skews the comparisons between EU-15 Member States, and indeed the year-on-year trends within some of the Member States. If wood is excluded, packaging in EU-15 increased by just 8.2% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual increase of 0.7%, while reported consumption of non-wood packaging in EU-12 fell by 1.0% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 0.2%. 14 Official data are expressed in tonnes and there are no EUROSTAT data on the number of packaging units placed on the market. It is therefore impossible to infer from these figures the extent to which changes in the reported consumption levels are due to lightweighting or to a shift to different packaging formats or sizes. However, many industry sources have published evidence which demonstrates the success of lightweighting in bringing about a continuous improvement in the resource-efficiency of packaging. 14 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

15 Table 2: Packaging placed on the market, excluding wood (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

16 Tables 3 and 4 show per capita consumption rates, applying EUROSTAT population figures to the tonnages shown in Tables 1 and 2. This is a useful indicator, since the population of EU-15 has been growing (by 6.3% between 1998 and 2010) whereas that of the new Member States has been in slight decline (by 0.2% between 2005 and 2010). However, consumption data need to be treated with caution, as Member States use different methodologies to calculate packaging placed on the market. Thus, the per capita estimates for different countries are not necessarily comparable. For instance, given the strong trading and cultural links between the respective pairs of countries, one would have expected the consumption rates for Austria and Germany and for Ireland and the UK to be much closer than Tables 3 and 4 below indicate. There was a remarkable discrepancy between the reported Latvian and Lithuanian consumption rates in earlier years, but they are now converging. Table 3: Per capita consumption of packaging placed on the market, as reported to the European Commission (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

17 Table 4: Per capita consumption of packaging, excluding wood (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

18 Glass packaging According to EUROSTAT data, consumption of glass packaging in EU-15 fell by 6.8% in terms of tonnage between 1998 and 2010, an average annual tonnage reduction of 0.6%. Consumption in EU-12 fell by 6.8% in terms of tonnage between 2005 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 1.4%. Table 5: Glass packaging placed on the market (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU The Estonian authorities have explained that their estimates of the amount of glass packaging generated were derived from a survey of mixed municipal waste, and may not be reliable. According to EUROSTAT data, per capita consumption of glass packaging in EU-15 fell by 12.1% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 1.6%. Per capita consumption in EU-12 fell by 6.6% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 1.4%. 18 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

19 Table 6: Per capita consumption of glass packaging (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

20 Metal packaging According to EUROSTAT data, consumption of metal packaging in EU-15 fell by 12.2% in terms of tonnage between 1998 and 2010, an average annual tonnage reduction of 1.1%. Consumption in EU-12 rose by 0.5% in terms of tonnage between 2005 and Table 7: Metal packaging placed on the market (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU According to EUROSTAT data, per capita consumption of metal packaging in EU-15 fell by 17.2% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 1.6%. Per capita consumption in EU-12 rose by 0.7% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual increase of 0.1%. 20 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

21 Table 8: Per capita consumption of metal packaging (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

22 Plastic packaging According to EUROSTAT data, consumption of plastic packaging in EU-15 rose by 31.3% in terms of tonnage between 1998 and 2010, an average annual tonnage increase of 2.3%. Consumption in EU-12 rose by 8.7% in terms of tonnage between 2005 and 2010, an average annual tonnage increase of 1.7%. Table 9: Plastic packaging placed on the market (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU According to EUROSTAT data, per capita consumption of plastic packaging in EU-15 rose by 23.8% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual increase of 1.8%. Per capita consumption in EU-12 rose by 8.9% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual increase of 1.7%. 22 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

23 Table 10: Per capita consumption of plastic packaging (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

24 Paper & board packaging According to EUROSTAT data, consumption of paper & board packaging in EU-15 rose by 12.5% in terms of tonnage between 1998 and 2010, an average annual tonnage increase of 1.0%. Consumption in EU-12 has fluctuated greatly, but the outcome was a reduction of just 0.1% in terms of tonnage between 2005 and Table 11: Paper & board packaging placed on the market (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU According to EUROSTAT data, per capita consumption of paper & board packaging in EU-15 rose by 6.1% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual increase of 0.5%. Per capita consumption in EU-12 in 2010 was the same as in Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

25 Table 12: Per capita consumption of paper & board packaging (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

26 Wood packaging According to EUROSTAT data, consumption of wood packaging in EU-15 fell by 7.2% in terms of tonnage between 2003 and 2010, an average annual tonnage reduction of 1.1%. On the other hand, consumption in EU-12 was reported to have risen by 46.9% in terms of tonnage between 2005 and 2010, an average annual increase of 8.0%. Table 13: Wood packaging placed on the market (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU According to EUROSTAT data, per capita consumption of wood packaging in EU-15 fell by 10.7% between 2003 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 1.6%. However, per capita consumption in EU-12 was reported to have risen by 47.2% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual increase of 8.0%. 26 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

27 Table 14: Per capita consumption of wood packaging (in kg) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics:

28 PACKAGING WASTE GOING TO FINAL DISPOSAL One of the principal aims of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive is to reduce the amount of packaging disposed of as waste. The official data should be treated with caution, as Member States have refined their estimation methodologies in the light of experience and so the returns are not necessarily comparable from year to year. Nevertheless, the official record shows that the amount of non-wood packaging sent for final disposal in EU-15 fell by 52.1% between 1998 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 6.0%. The amount of non-wood packaging reported to have been sent for final disposal in EU-12 fell by 30.5% between 2005 and 2010, an average annual reduction of 7.0%. Table 15: Packaging sent for final disposal, excluding wood (in 000 tonnes) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lichtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU EU EU In EU-27 just under 14.7 million tonnes of packaging went for final disposal in To put this into context, it was estimated in 2010 that about 89 million tonnes of food was being wasted per year in EU-27; 15 1,051 million tonnes of all kinds of waste was sent for final disposal in EU-27 in Most Member States are showing a downward trend in non-wood packaging tonnages going to final disposal. Eight reported an increase in 2010 over 2009, but in some cases this may have been due to statistical distortions. 15 Source: European Commission, Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, COM(2011) 13 final, 19 January Source: EUROSTAT, Waste statistics, 28 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics: